>I know ransmomware module isn't default but I wish you would have included it for most of the test, since most of the test was ransomware. And the module is a behavior blocker for certain folders.
> In regards to Petya, remember the cornerstone and greatness of Bitdefender is their signatures.
signature detection is a bit outdated although it's the strength of BD. Emsisoft and kaspersky also have great signatures, even better than BD nowadays If the BB cannot protect against new threats, we should consider other products which have better a behavior blocker or other modules which are similar
petya has been there for a very long time so why can't BD include its pattern of attack in their behavior blocker? What if someone creates a new petya or mamba or other types of MBR-ransomwares, how can BD can protect us? in this video, ATC aggressive + antiransomware module failed so there is an obvious vulnerability in their software for a long period of time
emsisoft has done a much better job than BD's ATC and it's very very light, confirmed by users + it's cheaper than BD
for paid AVs, we should consider Kaskersky and Emsisoft only
When we should consider other products
1/ It should be significantly lighter than Kaspersky
2/ Kaspersky or emsisoft are restricted in your countries or their cloud networks are frequently disconnected
3/ If your regional AVs are good enough + number 2/
